"POINTS" FOR 1885. 



BEING A COLLECTION OF 



FACTS AND FIGTJEBS 



FOR 



SMALL SPECULATORS. 



BY 



A.3ST OLD CAMPAiaNER 

— Lf- 

NEW YORK. 

PRESS OF PUSEY & ROONEY, 1327 BROADWAY, 

1885. 

COPYRIGHTED. 



SF 331 
.C54 
Copy 1 



INTRODUCTORY. 



In presenting this trifle to the race-going public, it has 
not been the intention of the writer to reach the " plungers," 
but it is intended solely for the benefit of that class of small 
speculators outside the " charmed circle," who, having no 
definite plan or theory of their own, have adopted a sort of a 
go-as-you-please system in betting, and one which invariably 
produces a profit on the wrong side of the ledger. 

A common criticism will perhaps be, that the essay is 
vague and indefinite, and so, no doubt, in some particulars, 
it may be, if viewed from one standpoint only — but the aim 
in writing was rather to offer suggestions than to give advice, 
or to lay down formal rules. We have proposed some gene- 
ral principles, and leave the reader free to make such appli- 
cations of them as he may deem proper. 



POINTS" FOR 1885- 



Now that the racing season of 1884 has passed into history, 
and the army of small speculators, with the usual balance on 
the wrong side of their ledger, are indulging in a retrospect 
of " what might have been," it may not be out of place to 
give a few facts and figures, touching the speculative mania. 

During the early season of '81 it occurred to the writer, 
that in view of the many theories which from time to time 
had been advanced as to the probable result of a system in 
betting — some being confident that " public form" was the 
proper and only correct thing to follow, while others would 
maintain that he who never backed the favorite stood the 
best chance of winning in the end — that, impelled by curi- 
osity to ascertain whether there might be any system which a 
person could follow with profit, a record of auction and mu- 
tual pool betting was commenced, and has been continued 
up to the close of the Brighton season of 1884. 

Whether or not there be anything in it, we leave the in- 
telligent reader to judge, but the surprisingly close average 
wins of the several choices as established by the auction pools, 
together with the equally close average values of the winning 



tickets, taking the mutual system as the standard, leaves but 
little room to doubt that a system might be adopted which 
would be along way ahead of backing your own fancy, or for 
that matter, your judgment. 

To the occasional speculator, "public form" is no doubt 
the safest to follow, but when you make a business of it, as 
many do, it is certain that if you back the favorite every time, 
you will just as certainly "get left." Leaving out the bugbear 
"jobs," which in some perverted minds seems to be the only 
rational solution of the cause which defeats a favorite, how 
any person can pick a ''sure winner " from a field of ten or a 
dozen starters of average ability, all brought so closely together 
by a nice adjustment of weights — that, as a veteran turfman 
once remarked upon scanning the entries of a certain handi- 
cap, "I don't believe that either ot them can win " — passes 
all comprehension, and the idea of naming the one who 
will first pass the winning-post — except by a lucky guess — 
is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. 

In the matter of stake races, with comparatively few start- 
ers, and none penalized, the previous performances of some 
of the horses does, perhaps, furnish us with a line to the 
probable winner, but it is in the '• scrambles," at five or six 
furlongs (and of which there are far too many), where the ser- 
vices of the champion guesser are most sought after, and the 
lambs offer up their greatest sacrifices. 

In making the averages of winners, the Brighton Beach races 



have been more thoroughly anal) zed for several reasons — the 
unusual length of the season affords a fairer average, its access- 
ibility, connecting as it does with a great number of lines of 
travel, has afforded the writer better facilities for making notes, 
and last, but by no means the least, because of a sort of popular 
misapprehension as to the real status of the Brighton Beach As- 
sociation. It has been called by some "the home of jobbery,'"' 
"the resort of unscrupulous and lawless characters," "a place to 
be avoided by those making any pretence to respectability," 
etc., while in fact it may be safely said that on no race course 
in the United States will you find fairer dealing. When the 
Association was chartered by the State it promised a new era, 
which has been faithfully fulfilled. Under, its auspices the sport 
has been of such a character as to be beyond reproach. The 
mob element, when in one or two instances it has endeavored 
to assert itself, has been summarily dealt with. The rules of 
racing have been enforced strictly to the letter. The officials 
have certainly possessed the attribute of competency, and we 
confidently believe that there have been fewer " jobs " than 
on some more pretentious tracks that might be named, which 
claim to be the existing standard of honesty and fair dealing. 
Many into whose hands this circular may fall will perhaps 
say, that because of the ' ' glorious uncertainty of horse-rac- 
ing," it would be simply impossible to adopt any definite 
plan, which would afford any return to the investor. Granted 
that it is very uncertain — so is human life ; and yet, the factor 



of average is the most important one in life insurance, and 
the statisticians of any company will tell you to a surprising 
degree of exactness just how many persons out of a given 
number will " drop out " within a given time. Their risks 
are based on this knowledge, and they never fail. 

The law of average, whether applied to horse-racing or to 
anything else containing the same element of uncertainty, is 
as unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and 
while it is not claimed that the identical figures will be repro- 
duced each year, enough is given to substantiate the theory, 
and we predict that what has been the result in previous 
years will, with but very little variation, be the result in 1885. 

It will be noticed from the following table that the regu- 
larity with which the first, second and third favorites win, is 
not confined to the Brighton track alone, but the rule is 
equally applicable to any other course, commencing with 
New Orleans in April, and taking in the entire circuit to Bal- 
timore m October. We have aggregated the seasons of 1881 
to 1884 at Sheepshead Bay and Monmouth Park in order to 
approximate more closely to the number of races run at 
Brighton, vet taking the seasons separately, the variations are 
scarcelv noticeable. 



Percentage of Wins by ist, 2d and 3D Favorites, and Field.* 



Brighton. 


Total 
No. of 

RACES. 


1st 
Choice. 


2D 
Choice 


3D 
Choice 


AGGRE- 
GATE 
OK 1st, 
2D & 3D 


FIELD. 


1881 
1882 
1883 

1884 


214 
470 
566 
640 

1890 


44.81 
46 40 
45.58 
42.41 


24.06 
21.70 
21.92 
20.19 

21.96 

22.44 
22.55 

22.32 


18.40 
14.70 
14.67 
19.22 

16.75 

18.82 
18.91 

18.16 


87.27 
82.80 
82.17 
81.82 

83.51 


12.73 
17.20 
17.83 
18.18 


General Average 


44.80 


1649 






sheepshead Bay, 1881 and 
1884, inclusive 


450 
454 

2794 


41.77 
43.52 

43.36 


83.03 
84.98 


16.97 


Monmouth Park, 1881 to 


15.02 






Total General Average 


83.84 


16.16 



* Includes all below the third choice.) 

From every quarter during the past season could be heard 
the wail of the plunger, lamenting over the " wholesale 
slaughter of the favorites/' and yet, when the matter is thor- 
oughly sifted, we find the falling off in the number of wins of 
the favorite at Brighton to be only 1-78 per cent, less than the 
average of the three preceding years. 

This slight variation can not be attributed to any lack of 
discernment or astuteness on the part of the " talent," but 
rather to the fact that the average number of starters in each 



10 



race in '84 was largely in excess of any previous year, and it 
must be obvious to every one, that as the number of starters 
are increased, the chances of the favorite decrease in the 
same proportion. The following table shows the total num- 
ber of wins by the first, second and third choices, as estab- 
lished by the auction pools, covering the seasons of 1881 and 
1884, both inclusive, together with the average value of each 
winning ticket In making the estimate of values the Mutual 
system has been adopted as requiring less calculation, and 
perhaps better understood by the majority of readers. 



Brighton Beach. 



Season of 1881 , 

1882 

1883 

1884 

Sheepsbead Bay, 1881 
and 1884, both inclu- 
sive 

Monmouth Park, 1881 
and 1884, both inclu- 
sive 



Total number of Races. . 
General Average Value. . 
Total number of Wins. . . 



Total 
No. of 
Races 



214 
470 
566 



450 



2794 



1st Choice. 



NO. 

of 

wins 



102 
218 
258 

271 

186 
200 



1235 



Aver- 
age 
Value 

OF 
TICK- 
ETS 



$10.57 
11.05 
10.48 
11.30 

11.09 



2d Choice. 3d Choice. 



No. 

OF 

WINS 



10.50 113 



53 
102 
124 
129 

90 



611 



Aver- 
age 
Value 
of 

Tick- 
ets. 



No. 

OF 

WINS. 



$18.80 39 

20.12 69 

20.90 83 

19.22 120 



Aver- 
age 
Value 
of 

Tick- 
ets. 



$33.20 

34.57 
35.53 
32.78 



21.68 1 91 ' 33.15 

I 



20.09 



20,13 



33.83 



33.86 




11 

In explanation of the foregoing table, we give the follow- 
ing as an illustration : 

Taking the total number of races as 2794, one Mutual tick- 
et on each race would have cost, 2794 by $5.00= - 13,970 
The first choice won 1235 times at $10.83= ' - - 13,375 

Net Loss, ... _ 

2d choice, same conditions, cost, 

" won 611, average value of tickets, S20. 13 = 

Net Loss, .... 
3d choice, cost, 

" won 491, average value of tickets, $33.86 = 

Net Profit, ... - 2,555 

By taking the seasons separately, the result in each instance 

— upon the same basis of calculation — shows a loss on the first 

and second choices, with a corresponding profit on the third. 

For example, in 1884, at Brighton, we have a total of 640 
races, one ticket on each race would have cost 640 ' 

by $5 = - 3> 20 ° 

1st choice won 271, average value $10.50 = 3,062 

Net Loss, ... . 138 

2d choice, cost, - 3,200 

" won 129, average value $19.22 = 2 ,479 

Net Loss, - - - - 721 

3d choice, cost, - 3,200 

" won 120, average value $32.78 = - - 3,934 



Net Profit, - - 734 

In the matter of place betting, we find the same condition 
of things to exist as in the former examples, viz.: The averages 
of the placed horses, with the relative values of the winning 
tickets are always in favor of the third choice, with the addi- 
tional advantage to the operator of limited means — that in 



12 

being placed more than twice as often as it wins, there is not so 
great an interval "between the acts," and consequently you get 
a return on your investment oftener, and your "margins" are in 
less danger of being swept away. To the followers of this sys- 
tem we submit a few facts and figures, which may be of interest: 



Brighton 
Beach. 



No. of 
Races 



1884 



566 
610 



Oen.Av'e. 603 



1st Choice. 



2d Choice. 



Times 
Placed 



376 
404 



Av. Value Times 
of tickets Placed. 

1 

7.46 280 

7.76 269 



Av. Value 
of tickets 



Times 
Placed 



9.42 
9.74 



9.58 



263 
235 



W.Val. 
of t'k'ts 



14.90 
14.24 
14.57 



By the same process of calculation as the " straight " bet- 
ting, the result of the two years would have been as follows : 



1883. One ticket each, 566 races, cost, - $2,830 
1st choice placed376 times, av. value, 7.46 2,804 

2d choice, cost, 566 by $5 2,830 

" placed 280 times, av. value, 9.42 2,637 

3d choice cost, - - 2,830 

" placed 208 times, av. value, 14.90 3,099 

1884. One ticket each, 640, races, cost, - 3,200 
1st choice placed 404 times, av. value, 7.76 3,135 



26 
[93 

65 



2d choice cost 640 by $5, - - 3,200 

" placed 269 times, av. value, 9.74 2.620 

580 

3d choice, cost, - . - 3,200 

" placed 263 times, av. value, 14.24 3*745 



Total result, 



S864 



269 



545 
$814 



13 

In the above statement for 1883, the actual profit on the 
third choice should read $419.00 instead of $269.00, for the 
reason that in 30 races out of the 566 during the season there 
was only one sold out — the favorite against the field, thus re- 
ducing the total cost of backing the third choice in each race 
to $2,680 instead of $2,830. 

We will not pass from the " mutual " box without giving 
the "field " a chance to rise and explain. It certainly played 
an important part at Brighton during the past season, but 
when we take into consideration the fact that only 18 per 
cent, of each 100 races was placed to its credit, to back 
the field — notwithstanding the liberal allowance we have 
made — it would be worse than following a "Jack o' lan- 
tern." 

Out of the 640 races at Brighton during the season of '84, 
119 were won by horses selling below the third choice. The 
winners averaged $83.74 each, making a total winning of 
$9,965 06. This would have been a nice little investment if 
you could have picked the winner each time, but let us see 
what the experiment would have cost. 

The average number of starters in each race was yj4; from 
this deduct first, second and third choices, which leaves us 
4%. Make a further deduction of one horse as a liberal al- 
lowance for those who sell as a field in the Mutuals when 
the fields are large, and this gives us an average of 3^ 
starters. 



14 

The proposition then stands as follows : 
3^ horses, with one ticket on each, net cost, $17.50, 640 

races at 17.50, each, net cost, - - - $11,200.00 

Field wins 119 times, average value each win, $83.74 9,965.06 

Net Loss on investment, - - 1234.94 

In numberless instances during the past season have we 
heard the remark — and especially after some unexpected 
"dump," where the winner has paid well up into the hun- 
dred, " I believe it would pay to back every horse in each race 
through the entire season. " That this idea is more general 
than one would suppose, is confirmed by the fact that in a 
dozen instances during the season of ''84, editors of sport- 
ing and other journals have been called upon to decide the 
question, and the answer has invariably been, "As a rule it 
would not be profitable." 

That the past season was a remarkably good one for the 
backers of "short horses" cannot be denied, yet to back every 
horse in order to catch the "short" one, would not have been a 
very profitable investment, as the following statement shows: 
Placing the whole number of races having three or more 
starters at 640, and the average number of starters at 
7 l / 2 , we make the cost of one mutual ticket on each 
horse, 640 by T l / 2 = 4,800 by $5 = - 24,000 

Total value of winning tickets, 1st choice, - 3 5 °62 

" " " 2d " 2,479 

" " " 3d " 3,934 

field, 9,965 

19,440 

Net Loss, - - - 4,560 



AUCTION POOLS. 



To those who can [afford to indulge in the luxury of 
"Auctions," it probably makes a better return for the outlay 
to the fortunate investor than either " book " or Mutual bet- 
ting. Taking the season of '84 at Monmouth Park as an 
average year, we find upon analyzing the betting, that the 
percentage of profit on the third choice in the auction pools 
was 36.06 — in the mutuals, 29.30, while in the books it only 
reached 15.18 per cent. At Brighton, where there is no 
book betting, we find that during the same season, the per- 
centage of profits on the third choice in the auction pools 
was 27.50, against 20.84. for the mutual system. 

In the latter instance, while the percentage of profit shown 
is not as large as at Monmouth, it will be noticed that the 
same relative difference of percentage between the auction 
and mutual system is maintained. 

In the following summary of auction pool betting at 
Brighton, covering the years 1882 and 1884 inclusive, the cal- 
culations are not made from one particular pool in each race 



16 



but from the average of the pools, and consequently the state- 
ment is as nearly correct as it is possible to make it. 



1883. 


1st Choice 


2d Choice 


3d Choice 


Field 


Aggregate cost of one pool 
each race. 

Proceeds, less commission. 


$45801 
45950 


$23248 
19636 


$13080 $19563 
16839 16848 


Net Profit. 
Net Loss. 


149 


3612 


3759 


2715 


1S83. 

Aggregate cost of one pool 

each race. 
Proceeds, less commission. 


80295 
81265 


37003 
42400 


27703 
25503 


31911 
34338 


Net profit. 
Net Loss. 


970 


4397 


2670 


2427 


1884. 

Aggregate cost of one pool 
each race. 

Proceeds, less commission. 


90490 
89542 


49840 
41672 


30930 
39437 


42930 
43021 


Net Profit. 

Net Loss. 


948 


8168 


8507 


91 


General Result. 

Net Profit. 
Net Loss. 


1769 


16177 


14936 


5233 



17 

It would, perhaps, be difficult to advance any more rea- 
sonable theory as to why the following of the first or second 
choices should show a loss, and the third favorite a profit, 
than upon the ground that three-fourths of the money goes 
upon the first and second, and when the third does come to 
the front — which it is certain to do eighteen times out of a 
hundred — the dividend is always large enough to cover all 
previous losses and leave a margin ot profit. 

Whether this be the correct solution or not, the fact still 
remains, that taking the four years at Brighton, Mon- 
mouth, and Sheepshead Bay, either separately or collectively, 
to have backed the third choice — either in the Mutual or auc- 
tion pools — in each and every race would have been a profit- 
able investment simply by "going it blind." What the result 
would have been by following the same plan with the exercise 
of a little good judgment, I leave the reader to imagine. Cer- 
tainly, out of 2794 races there would have been one-eighth 
of that number, at least, where the result was a foregone con- 
clusion, and to have taken the third choice to win in those 
instances would stamp the operator either an idiot or a 
lunatic. 



T I P S." 



There may be a diversity of opinion as to the merits of the 
" points" herein given, as compared with the ingenious yet 
not always sure methods of "picking the winner/' such as 
closing the e)es and perforating the programme with a pin; 
whichever name you punch, back him to the whole extent of 
your pile. The theory of this "tip" is that somehow or other 
your guardian angel (if you happen to have one) steadies 
your elbow until you get to the right spot, when you 
•'punch.' - ' 

Another, and equally as sure a method, is' to take a cer- 
tain number on your programme, without any regard to the 
quality of the horse whose name is set opposite, and back that 
number throughout the entire list. To make this tip abso- 
lutely certain, if there are six horses on the card for the first 
event, put the numbers one to six inclusive in a hat, shake 
them well up and draw one. If number 4 is drawn, then 
number 4 is certain to either win or lose every race on the cal- 
endar. 

There are scores of tips of a similar character, and equally 
as reliable, which might be enumerated, but we believe that 
those already given are sufficient. If by any possibility how- 
ever, either or all of them should fail, the ubiquitous "tip- 



' 



19 

ster " may always be found, thoroughly stocked with an as- 
sortment of " sure things," and which he is ready to impart 
to the seeker after knowledge for the slight consideration of 
'•'a stake if you win." If the tipster be a descendent of Ham 
and presumably an attachee of one of the racing-stables, this 
will make assurance doubly sure, and you may pile up the 
shekels on his selections with entire confidence. 

We never could quite understand the philosophy that a 
man with a black skin was possessed of a greater share of pre- 
science than is usually accredited to the rest of humanity; yet, 
certain it is that he is so regarded by the thousands of small 
bettors at the race tracks, who cannot witness a race without 
making an investment, and most generally a losing one. 

Among that growing class whose sole ambition and aim 
in life is to get money without earning it, the "tipster" stands 
pre-eminent, and the business is fast becoming a positive nui- 
sance. Not one of them has any more reliable information 
than have their victims. They have never seen any of the 
horses which they give you as "sure things," except when 
brought upon the track for a race, and their selections are 
mere guess work. If the knowledge which they pretend to 
possess could be relied upon, they could find a much more 
profitable market among the bookmakers, or they could back 
their "sure thing" themselves, and win a fortune. 

Perhaps the most dangerous of the class are the button- 
hole "tipsters," whose plan is to give each applicant forinfor- 



20 

mation a different horse in the race, and then "stand in" with 
the ones who have, through sheer luck, hit the winning horse. 
There are, no doubt, some professional "touts" whose infor- 
mation may be relied upon, but these ply their vocation only 
in the interests of wealthy bookmakers, and to those outside 
the "ring" such knowledge is a sealed book. Our advice to 
speculators is, that the wider the berth they give the class of 
tipsters we have alluded to, the better it will be for their 
pockets. 

COMBINATIONS. 



A word or two upon the subject of Combinations. No 
matter how great the inclination to make 'them, our advice is 
simply — " Don't." It sometimes looks to be a very easy mat- 
ter to pick three or four successive winners, and especially so 
after the races have been decided; but as a rule the combina- 
tion player cannot win three times out of one hundred. Long 
odds against three or four horses to win is oftentimes a great 
temptation 'tis true, but when you take into consideration the 
odds against your picking them, it is money in your pocket if 
you never touch them. 

Take for instance four races of average fields, say six start- 
ers in the first, five in the second, six in the third, and seven 



21 

in the fourth. Assuming that all have an equal chance of 
winning, the problem stands as follows — 6x5x6x7=1260, or 
in other words, out of a possible of 1260 you have one chance 
of winning. 

Of course it will be claimed and perhaps with some truth, 
that fully one-half of the number are "old crabs," neither of 
whom have the ghost of a chance to win. Granted that such 
appears to be a fact, yet somehow or another, 16^ times out 
of one hundred, the "old crabs" will turn|up at an inoppor- 
tune moment, and your big pot is upset. 

If the habit is too firmly rooted to be given up, or you are 
"out on the game," and are determined to back them until you 
get square (?), why not take the same amount which you 
would place on a combination, and back your first selection; 
if it wins,'place the whole proceeds on the second, and so on 
to the third and fourth ; the result in every instance would be 
at least five hundred per cent, greater than you would receive 
rom a straight combination. 

During the Fall Meeting at Sheepshead Bay the past sea- 
son, the writer, who has always kept his combination book 
(without investing a dollar), obtained the odds about four 
horses who he thought had a chance to win. 80 to 1 was 
the price offered, and for the first time, covering a period of 
nearly four months, during which he had jotted down upward 
of 300 combinations, the four won. 

At the odds above quoted an investment of $20 in a straight 



22 

combination would have netted the snug little sum of $1,600. 
But let us take a look at the other side of the picture. The 
starting price of the four winners in the books were as follows: 
The first, 8 to one against; the second, 4 to i : the third, 4^ 
to 1; and the fourth, 5 to 1. 

Now, if one had placed $20 on the first, the entire pro- 
ceeds on the second, and so on to the third and fourth selec- 
tions, the result would have been a total winning of $25,360. 
It will be claimed of course that one would never play the 
combination out. Probably not ; most people, after getting 
winner No. 2, with a net profit of $820 would probably quit, 
entirely satisfied with their investment. But why not play it 
out? If you risk $20 on a straight combination, you cannot 
get any portion of it back after the investment is made, and 
by backing them singly, you need only lose the original in- 
vestment of $20, while if you should win, the profit on the 
transaction would enable you to retire for the season. 

It will perhaps be urged by the straight combination play- 
er, that if you get two or three winners on your card you can 
"hedge out" and win either way. This plan will answer, pro- 
vided your combination ends with a strong favorite ; but if it 
ends with a cheap horse, or as it frequently happens, your last 
horse is "scratched," your chance to hedge is very remote. 
On the other hand, in the case of backing them singly, if you 
have any doubt of the ability of your third or fourth selection 
to win, or if either are "scratched," if your two first have 



23 

won, you are something ahead on the investment, and can af- 
ford to quit. 

We do not advance this as an argument in favor of com- 
binations, for we speak from experience when we say that J t 
matters not how you play them, you can never " beat the 
game " — and still combinations will be made to the end of the 
chapter. 



JOCKEYS' MOUNTS. 



No system of betting can possibly be more uncertain, or 
the result more unsatisfactory, than backing jockevs mounts, 
and the most popular jockey is the least likely to make any 
adequate return to his backers, for the reason that they invar- 
iably have the best mounts, and the odds against them are al- 
ways so ridiculously small, that it usually requires about two 
winning mounts to cover the loss occasioned by one losing 
one, and as a good jockey, even under the most favorable 
circumstances, seldom, if ever averages one win in three 
mounts, the fact that it is an unsafe game becomes at once ap- 
parent. Of course there are instances where a popular 
jockey accepts a mount on a horse selling low in the pools, 



24 

and they do sometimes win, but it is the exception rather than 
the rule. Of the uncertainty of this system, a better instance 
could not be cited than in the case of our popular jockey, J. 
McLaughlin. 

Notwithstanding the fact that during the past season he rode 
all sorts of horses, and his success might certainly be called 
phenomenal, a stated sum placed on each and every one of his 
mounts during the season would have resulted in a loss to his 
backer. The same is true of other and perhaps equally as good 
riders, among whom may be named Hayward, J. Donnoghue, 
Blaylock, Fitzpatrick, Lewis, Meaton, Maynard, Huston, A. 
Walker, and a number of other heavy and middleweight "art- 
ists" — while on the on the other hand to have backed the 
mounts of the "boy-division," to-wit: Garrison Church, Cowall, 
Cross, R. Williams, Higgs, and possibly one or two other light- 
weights, it would have left the investor a margin of profit. In 
the case of the lesser lights, while the number of wins credited 
to each (with perhaps the exception of Garrison) were fewer 
in number than those of their stronger and more skilled com- 
petitors, the result tends to prove that the occasional win of a 
horse starting at long odds will pay better in the long run than 
the one who wins oftener at short odds. 

As an instance of this, take the first too mounts of Mc- 
Laughlin and Church respectively during the past season. Out 
of this number the former is bracketed $y times, and the lat- 
ter 29 times. The cost of backing 100 mounts, placing, say 



25 

$5 on each, would be $500. The average value of winning 
tickets on McLaughlin's mounts were $13.57, making a to- 
tal of $502.09, showing a net profit on the transaction of 
$2.09; while the average of Church's winning mounts were 
$27.70,01- a total of $803. 30, showing a net profit of $303.30; 
and this proportion was maintained throughout the season. 

The element o( luck enters more largely perhaps into this 
system of betting than any other, as a comparison by years 
shows that while in one season the heavy-weights may carry 
off the spoils, probably in the next the "boys"' can discount 
them. 



MATTERS IN GENERAL. 



It is not the purpose of the writer to advance any argu- 
ments in favor of or against the practice of betting at the race 
track. Enough has been written upon the subject to fill a 
volume. 

Suffice it to say that gambling is a disease which every 
member of the human family has inherited, and we take to 
it as readily as the small boy does to the measles. 
There are no different grades or sliding scales in the 



26 

business — anything which we may undertake containing the 
element of chance, with a view more or less exclusive to a 
pecuniary gain must be included in the same category, al- 
though we may dignity it by the term of speculation. 
— It is a sad commentary on our existing laws that legalizes 
abusiness in which thousands are annually ruined, body and 
soul, and relentlessly stamps out an equally as legitimate a 
business, on the plea that it is demoralizing in its influences. 
The racing interests represent millions of dollars in capital, 
and furnishes employment to tens of thousands, and the money 
thus put into circulation is of incalculable benefit to people 
of every grade and condition in life: but what benefit does the 
artizan, the tradesman or the laborer derive from the millions 
that change hands during a single month in Wall street? 
It is extremely doubtful whether there be any defaulting 
bank presidents or cashiers ''over the border,'"' whose downfall 
can be attributed to the purchase of auction pools at the race 
track, and those persons occupying humbler positions in life 
are in far greater danger of being wrecked at the legalized 
"bucket shops" to be met at every turn, than they could pos- 
sibly be by visiting a race course, perhaps two or three times 
during a season. 

Of course it is urged by the opponents of horse-racing, 
that their antagonism is directed, not at the royal sport itself* 
but at the pernicious habit of gambling. Perhaps so; but take 
away the betting privileges, and racing is dead and buried be- 



27 

yond a resurrection. The blue skies, the bracing atmosphere, 
the green fields, and the pleasant surroundings which once 
delighted the senses — all are there except the life and main- 
spring — the pool-box. 

That the whole interest to the ordinary race-goer does not 
centre in the "sport.'' is manifest to the least observing hab- 
itue of the course. Excitement reigns supreme as the horses at 
the post are stretched like a platoon of cavalry athwart the 
'track, each apparently as eager as his parti-colored rider for 
the fall of the flag to start them on their journey. The flag 
falls, and all are in motion; at the quarter the favorite leads 
by a clear length; at the half the positions are unchanged, 
and shouts of ''they'll never catch him — he'll win it in a walk,'' 
are heard from every side. As they whe'el into the stretch with 
the favorite yet in the lead, one would think that 
pandemonium had broken loose — the occupants of the 
grand stand rise m masse — the shouts are intensified, hats 
are thrown high into the air, and from the Babel like 
sounds around you, it is impossible to distinguish anything. 
The struggling horses reach the betting stand, and 
apparently it's all over. The eager crowd rush from the pal- 
ing of the lawn, each striving to be first at the little wicket 
where the paste-boards are cashed, but it is not all over. Some 
horse from the dark division has slipped in next the rails, and 
is steadily gaining inch by inch on the leader as they struggle 
for the goal. The shouts are hushed, and men stand with 



28 

bated breath anxiously watching the result. Within fifty yards 
of the wire the two horses are parallel, and as they pass the 
winning-post the 'short*' one gets the verdict by a head. 
But where are the shouters ? The hats that were so recent- 
ly thrown high into space, are now jammed low over corru- 
gated brows; the eight inch smiles have vanished, and from 
the solemn expressions of countenance to be seen on every 
side, you are in doubt whether the procession just passed was 
not a funeral, and the former shouters the chief mourners, un- 
til brought to your senses by the monotonous drone of the 
scalper, "Cash your tickets," 'Til give $420 for Tilford 
tickets." That game struggle up the stretch was sport, but the 
other horse carried the ducats, and the sport to the large ma- 
jority ceased to be interesting. 

Our race-courses would soon become barren and deserted 
wastes if their support depended entirely upon that class who 
attend the meetings simply because it lifts them for the time 
being out of the daily ruts of life, and brings a temporary rest 
to tired hand and brain. The majority take a more practical 
and tangible "dollars and cents'' view of the matter, and 
while they may enjoy with as much satisfaction the excitement 
and pleasure consequent upon the change from the hum- 
drum of every-day life, at the same time they are not averse to 
turning an honest penny, and thus are the "sinews of war" 
supplied. 

The love of gain is inherent in each and every individual, 
of all ages and stations in life, and this condition of things 



29 

will cease to exist only when this mundane sphere ceases to 
be inhabited. 

To sum up the whole business — those who bet indiscrim- 
inately, backing their own fancy or judgment in one race — "a 
dead sure thing," which somebody has given them in another, 
or a third because its name is somehow associated with a cer- 
tain vision of recent date, are just ascertain to lose in the end, 
as it is certain that this terrestrial ball is inhabited, and for the 
truth of this you need not go beyond your own experience. 
And the years come and go with always the same result, 
and the anxious thousands are still wooing the Goddess For- 
tune, waiting and watching for the time when some lucky 
"coup" will restore to them all former losses, besides leaving 
a large balance "to the good," when they will retire from the 
turf for all time, and nevermore be tempted by the fickle 
jade. TJ^ere has never yet been an instance where such expec 
tations have been realized, nor is it probable there ever wilj 
be. Many, indeed, do retire from the turf at the close of each 
season, but not of their own volition — for obvious reasons the 
turf has retired them. 

It must be apparent to those who have given the matter 
any thought that the "game can be beaten," and to do it suc- 
cessfully all that one requires is a little "nerve," and an 
inexhaustible purse — the rest is comparatively easy. Yet, hav- 
ing the aforesaid purse, it is scarcely probable that one 
would attempt to add anything more to his earthly pos- 
session by so uncertain a method, no matter how much 



30 

4 'nerve" he might be possessed of in his own right. But 
to make the matter clear to those who have never analyzed 
the probabilities, and consequently are unable to see how 
it is possible to make a dead sure thing out of horse-rac- 
ing: You have only to take a two to one chance against 
you, and place, say $20 upon it. If you lose, double the 
amount of your venture on the next at the same odds, and 
repeat the doubling process until you do win — ten succes- 
sive losses would cost you only $20,460 (and here is where 
the inexhaustable purse comes in), while if you win on the 
tenth investment your profit on the transaction would be 
$10,260. With a larger or a smaller amount placed at the 
same odds, so long as the doubling process is kept up — no 
matter at what stage of the game you win — whether at the 
first, second, third, fourth, sixth or tenth investment, the 
result is always the same — a profit of fifty per cent. 

The only objection to this plan would seem to be an "if" 
— which, while insignificant in its proportions, is none the 
less an insurmountable obstacle, and one, alas ! which too 
frequently upsets "the best laid plans of mice and men." 
" Always stand to win a hundred/' is another bit of good 
advice which old stagers are prone to distribute gratuitously 
to the seeker after knowledge, when the recipient of such a tip 
couldn't raise money enough to buy a gangway plank, if 
steamboats were selling at a dollar apiece. As in the case of 
double or quits, "the longest pole knocketh down the per- 
simmons,' - and if your supply of the needful is unlimited, the 



31 

advice is good, and the plan certain to succeed. As an ''old- 
timer/' to whom the writer broached the subject, once 
remarked, '"Yes, it's a dead sure thing if you only catch 
them right. If you don't, it's about the quickest way 
to get '"scooped"' that I know of. I once contributed $2,300 
in one day to the fund for indigent bookmakers, and I wasn't 
a new hand at the business, either. The signs were all right 
when I started in, and I supposed that a blind man could 
pick them, but I went clean broke on the third race, and had 
the satis action of seeing the favorite in each of the three suc- 
ceeding races win, "hands down." My stack wasn't tall 
enough on that occasion, but the "fund'' didn't owe me any- 
thing when I settled up the following day.'' 

It is our firm conviction that the balance sheet at the close 
of the racing season of 1885 will produce the same relative 
results as shown in the preceding years, and while we do not 
for a moment imagine that the facts and figures herein given 
will revolutionize the betting, and that each and every specu- 
lator will retire from the arena at the close of the season with 
a competency, we do confidently believe that the 6 to 1 chance 
if persistently followed, will produce a more gratifying result 
than can possibly be attained by any other method; but in or- 
der to carry it out successfully, the operator must be practic- 
ally deaf, dumb and blind to all outside influences, and with- 
out an overweening confidence in his own judgment. 

It is an indisputable fact that all cannot win, and conse- 
quently somebody must "pay the fiddler," and as an instance 



L1DRMKT Ur UUtNOKfc^b 



ill 


II llll 


ilill IH 


1 
| 



32 



that the cost of maintaining an "orches ,, , 

no insignificant item, it is estimated that tne amount passing 
through the "Mutual''' boxes at Brighton during 1884 aver- 
aged $70,000 daily. The entertainment covered a period of 
125 days, making a total of $8,750,000. Of this amount the 
association retained the usual commission of 5 per cent., equal 
to $43 7,500, which it sate to assume ''somebody" furnished. 
That class of people who can draw consolation from the 
fact, as they return from the races "dead broke,'' that they have 
no other fellow's money in their pocket, are notably few in 
number, and our experience in such matters leads us to be- 
lieve that it would be hardly possible to find one out of the 
many contributors to this "musical" fund who would not be 
willing to affirm under oath that he "quit to the good. - ' 

Concerning the value of the "points" herein given, it is 
scarcely probable that it will influence in the slightest partic- 
ular one person out of a thousand. A few perhaps might 
think the plan worth a trial, but an interval of twenty' or 
thirty races before their choice came to the front would 
give them their quietus, provided even that the " shekels " 
held out, when they would return to their first love, declaring 
every system that did not win every time, a delusion and a 
snare. And the multitude will continue on in the old beaten 
track, gathering their inspirations from signs, dreams, incan- 
tations, and the pin process, and the ''tipster" will flourish 
like the green bay tree, and his '* sure things " be followed 
as heretofore, and to the end of the chapter. 



C.54 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






002 829 971 # 



